Lemberger v. Khan
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision.
- Goetz v. Synthesys Technologies, Inc. (5th Cir. 2005)
- Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. White (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. White (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Santander Bank, N.A. v. Chef's Orchid-The Grille, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2026)
- Talcott Resolution Life Insurance Company v. Carlyle (District Court, D. Maryland 2020)
- Indymac Fed. Bank, FSB v. Jones (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- HSBC Mtge. Corp. (USA) v. Hollender (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Cepeda (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Lasalle Bank N.A. v. Hudson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Baldi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Besemer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Cherot (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Cherot (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Lopez v. DePietro (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- McSorley v. Spear (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Estate of Waterman v. Jones (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- O'Connell v. Post (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Koyenov v. Twin-D Transportation, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.H.O.), dated July 28, 2004, which, after a hearing, in effect, denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
“Nail and mail” service pursuant to CPLR 308 (4) may be used only where personal service under CPLR 308 (1) and (2) cannot be made with due diligence. “The due diligence requirement of CPLR 308 (4) must be strictly observed, given the reduced likelihood that a summons served pursuant to that section will be received” (Gurevitch v Goodman, 269 AD2d 355 [2000]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the three attempts made by the plaintiffs’ process server to personally serve him at his residence satisfied the due diligence requirement (see Johnson v Waters, 291 AD2d 481 [2002]; Rodriguez v Khamis, 201 AD2d
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.